Comparing a virtual assistant to an in-house hire by salary alone misses most of the real cost. Here's the fuller picture.
With a flat hourly model like Redactando Mundos' $14/hour rate, you pay for hours actually worked, up to 6 hours a day per assistant — no payroll tax overhead, no equipment to buy, no separate onboarding cost on your end since that's built into the service.
Some roles genuinely need someone physically present, deeply embedded in company culture, or handling highly sensitive decisions no one else should touch. For those roles, an in-house hire is worth the fuller cost.
Recurring, definable work — admin, customer service, content, follow-up, CRM, research — rarely needs someone in the building. That's exactly the work a bilingual virtual assistant is built to absorb, often for a fraction of the fully loaded cost of a new hire.
Estimate the hours per week a task actually takes, multiply by $14, and compare that number to a new hire's fully loaded cost — salary plus taxes, benefits, equipment, and your own hiring time. For most recurring admin and support work, the gap is bigger than it first appears.
Usually for recurring, definable tasks — but roles requiring physical presence or deep embedded judgment may still be better as in-house hires.
Less than a self-hired freelancer — a matched, onboarded assistant with weekly check-ins needs far less day-to-day management than starting from scratch.
Yes — many clients keep core in-house roles and use a virtual assistant specifically for the recurring work that doesn't need someone on-site.